Oh cut it out. I'm not an "anti-gun bigot" with "liberal bias'; I represent a perfectly mainstream position - preserve the RKBA, but give law enforcement the tools to assign guns to persons legally responsible for them. Just as we are all perfectly comfortable with when it comes to cars.
And I am concerned that the entire gun right is on very shakey Constitutional ground. You don't like that message, so you attack the messenger. But the individual gun right is as fragile as the abortion right, and the Dems are prioritizing the need to appoint judges who will overturn Heller.
It is time to stop fighting the last war (or even sillier, engage like INVAR in masturbatory fantasies about armed insurrection), and realize that an amendment of the Second Amendment is essential to secure the individual RKBA.
What will you do if we don't acquiesce? Engage armed fantasies (by proxy, of course) to disarm those of us who are armed? Isn't that asking for armed insurrection--or is that the armed insurrection against the Rights enshrined in the seminal documents of this Republic? Who is the insurrectionist, there? You speak of those who would deny a fundamental Civil Right to a third of the American People as if they are "mainstream", yet they are the 'revolutionaries' decrying one of the bases of this Republic.
If y'all don't like this country, one which has been traditionally one of the best armed per capita, to its benefit, then by all means, leave and go elsewhere and request they disarm, or go someplace else which has effectively disarmed their citizenry. I am sure you will be feel much more free there from evil and oppression. Or not.
How can a species old Right be on shakier or even as shaky ground as one invented to facilitate the murder one's own inconvenient offspring? What silliness. Note, too that the Right is to keep and bear ARMS--not just guns but instruments of blunt force trauma, devices designed to cut or pierce an enemy, along with those which propel a projectile through mechanical, chemical or other means. Firearms may be a popular option, but they are far from the only option.
In fact, "Arms" could be construed as virtually anything which makes defense (or offense, for that matter) more effective.
I'm a geologist. Will the government come for my rocks? (the original murder weapon, or at least the first documented one). How about sticks, lengths of pipe, or your hands and feet if deemed too large--the tools of murder in over 5% of cases--more than rifles and shotguns combined in 2011. Or knives, which exceeded the total for rifles and shotguns as well, by an even greater margin. Will we have to register our roast beef slicers and bread knives (because with a little filing/grinding, the latter could be repurposed as a nasty penetrating weapon)?
Will we ban all sharp, pointy things, blunt things, heavy things, every possibly lethal chemical, every immersion hazard,
pillows? All have been used as murder weapons, and will likely be again. Ban one technology, another will replace it. And before you deem those crude weapons ineffective, recall the Hutus and Tutsis managed to kill a half million people during that fracas, mostly with machetes. History proves, time and again, that when the people stand helpless in front of their government, it goes poorly for those people. When they stand against those who are armed, no matter how crudely, the effectiveness of or absence of their own weapons is relevant.
My point is that changing the availability of weapons will not cure the underlying ills which lead to violent acts, large or small, although it might shift the players to the big and strong rather than smaller and weaker contenders, and the violence of the acts will become more vigorous, more vicious, more up close and personal. In a word, messier.
Weapons which rely more on surprise, stealth, and skill than the presentation of a threat of overwhelming force might shift the numbers from robbery to murder, because they will be employed preemptively instead of relying on intimidation to render their victims harmless. After all, unintended consequences are the hallmark of Liberal schemes.
Then you have folks like me. I respect the law and those who enforce it. We know where each other stand, and there have been no problems. But try to loot my gun cabinet, and we're going to have problems.
Violating the very fabric of this nation by trying to do so under color of law makes the act all the more reprehensible.
I don't care who you are, be it pauper or Pope, keep your meathooks off the hardware.
I will defend my Right with all I need to do so, against all comers, as long as I am capable of doing so.
I am not alone.
There are millions more like me and we ask nothing of others other than to leave our Rights alone.
